I should be clear that, as I stated in edit summary, my edit yesterday was based on the fact that Grey DeLisle is listed as the VA for Mai's mother in the credits section for "Return to Omashu". I was not undoing your edit for no reason, or to intentionally list something incorrect.
I have looked into this a bit further online and there is conflicting information, with both actresses having been credited on different websites. I also haven't been able to find anything official stating who the VA was. Looking at the edit history for the page, it was added based on how the character sounds. I have listened to the episode and I agree with the conclusion that it is Grey DeLisle and not Tara Strong. If you disagree, I am happy to discuss the point further.
The IGN article referenced on the page says "Netflix will partner with Nickelodeon ..". The phrase "partner with" suggests to me a greater involvement from Nickelodeon that goes beyond just Netflix buying the rights.
Hey HoT, I saw that you undid my edit and it does appear to be standard on these kinds of articles, although I still stand that it's weird and breaks flow. According to the MoS we don't need a biographical information section, only as applies. I think it's weird that if we don't state unknowns on in-universe pages we shouldn't state them on crew/VA pages either. I'm willing to go through and remove those sections on articles tbh.
We don't do that on any of our other articles, though. There's also the problem where a lot of pages have it after a couple of sentences of biographical information, begging the question how many sentences is sufficient biographical information.
In addition, what if some people (understandably) don't make much of their life public? Should we keep their pages in this (apparently) unfinished state forever? It feels weird, we don't do that on any other aritcles when we lack information or even when they're under construction, any user is always welcome to edit our pages and add it, they shouldn't need that as an incentive.
I'm pretty sure that section has been included from before my time so I cannot comment on the reasoning for including it in the first place. I would say however that it is not the same as including or stating something that is unknown, rather stating that we don't know anything more about that person. It isn't an "under construction" statement as much as a "nothing else is known" statement. If nothing gets added to it then fine, if something does then fine.
How is it different than saying "we don't know if Mai and Zuko ever were married" or "we don't know who lin's dad is" or something though? I mean those are all things we don't know, but we don't start our articles with "this character's place of birth and parents are unknown, but…" because we don't like to state when we know something isn't known, we just usually work around it, so I don't really see what the difference is here.
If we were writing "this person's birth place is not known" or statements like that I would agree with you, but we are writing "No additional information for this voice actor has been found". That isn't speculation, it isn't stating something unknown, it is stating nothing has been found. And that is only included when a very small amount has been included in the article, otherwise it is excluded. Unless I am misunderstanding something, I do not see the problem.
I guess I just don't really see the difference in those two. I feel like it's the kind of thing where if we don't have biographical information listed, it's obvious that we don't have any that's been found. I see your argument though so I'm willing to just let the situation drop and add "no biographical information has been found" to the articles that lack it to make it consistent across the board.
I would like to interject: we do not, on this wiki, have empty sections. A section that says "we have no more information" is an empty section. Given that this is standard across the wiki, I don't see why this has come up as an issue.
Hey HammerOfThor, first off, long time no see! How have ya been? I noticed you spent a year living in Italy recently. That's pretty neat. Whereabouts did you go? Earlier this year I went there for the first time myself on vacation. Since it was only a week, for the most part I stayed in Tuscany. I really wanted to go to Rome, too, but didn't have the time on this particular trip.
Nice. I've been thinking about going back there eventually, once I have the time and money set aside.
Life's pretty good, but hectic and busy at the same time. My hours at work got extended recently so that greatly limits my free time, but I get along with my roommates and coworkers. Trying to get out and go to the gym when possible.
I wasn't able to find anything on the archive, but the History of the World of Avatar page has her born in 85 AG, and so that would make her 14 in ATLA; I copied the reference from that page as I figured if it was being provided as the reference for when she was born it would work for her age as well. I will try and find something more substantive today, maybe in the artbook.
Thank you for the welcome. Things got a bit hectic IRL after I came back earlier this year, but hopefully my return now will be permanent. And the new series was a good excuse to come back anyway.
I'm guessing you didn't find an entry for it, and to be honest I think it must have just been an oversight by editors in the past and that Ty Lee does not actually have a canonical age. In addition to the tumblr archive not having her age, I searched through the text archive on archive.org, and couldn't find anything either. I'm thinking we should remove all references to Ty Lee being fourteen.
I'm afraid I haven't been able to go through the artbook yet. I packed most of my stuff away when I moved to Italy and I cannot remember which box the books went in. I will try and find it this evening.
I think you are right and the age was added as an oversight, perhaps under the assumption (probably correctly) that she was the same age as Azula. Feel free to remove it, and if I do find something in the artbook it won't be a problem to just re-add it.
What do you think about keeping a record, maybe in a userpage, of the various arguments/reasonings for each character's age? Discussions like this seem to occur a lot, and I think it would be useful to have an "official" record for future reference.
I couldn't find anything in the artbook. (Recheck would be good.)
But the Elite trio had about the same size in the "Zuko Alone" flashback when they were playing. Also shown side-by-side in the artbook. So they probably are the same age. You should at least write that she was in her mid-teens during ATLA and not just delete everything.
There's no need to say she's around her teens though, the age category is for a specific number. We don't list Iroh as middle aged or other characters as young, that can be gathered by their pictures. The category is for numbers, and we can infer she's around 14-15 but it can't be stated so I don't think there's a need to list it.
One more numbers thing I'm struggling on, Appa's age. We have him listed as 106 and that he was newborn and that Aang got him at age 6, but do we have sources for that? Did a quick check through the art book for ALD and archive and I didn't find it.
The only thing I could find in the artbook was in "Appa's Lost Days", the image of young Appa has the description "Appa as a cute toddler", but that still isn't conclusive enough to give a specific age.
Hmm, that is strange. Looking back over the history, his age has been added as both 16 and 17, and stated as confirmed by Bryke at SDCC 2007. When I have some time, I will see if I can find confirmation either way.
I looked at the Talk page for Jet, it looks like Omnibender thought it was the 2007 panel, but nobody was able to verify it in the thread. Omnibender, if you're reading this did you ever get the source for that? Can we just remove it?
I checked Meng's page to see when the age was added and if a description was given. Apparently it was added by Tink sil ro dess fawn in 2010, but nobody ever questioned it. I guess it's safe to say we can remove it in this case. I'll check other characters later to see if we can remove unsourced info there as well.
This is really something. Some of these mistakes date back to over a decade ago. A user added Appa's age as 106 because of the timeline (I still don't get what he means and then it was just left there and even modified a few times, but it seems someone decided Appa's age and then placed it because they wanted to and users agreed.
I assume the timeline is some kind of official work, but I have no idea of knowing exactly what that is or what the source is. For some exaples it's a real headache. Many years ago Omnibender said Suki was 15 because of the avatar index, but no archives of the index have that listing. Since the only remaining link that was archived was super buggy, it's possible that it did exist that way at one point but has since been completely removed form the internet, leaving us scratching our heads.
I think Appa's age is a combination of this first fact on Avatar Extras (Book One: Water)#"The Waterbending Scroll" and the first Aang-Appa meetup we see in Appa's Lost Days. This thread http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:1260948 estimated little Aang as 6 years old when he's meeting Appa (probably based on Avatar Extras), hence Appa being 6 years younger. We see Appa flying with his siblings in a flashback. Jinora says in "Orignal Airbenders" that it takes 1-2 weeks until Bison learn how to fly. So I think 2 assumptions align with the estimated age: that flashback is not long after Appa's birth and the age from (the unrelated) Avatar Extras is the age we see Aang in Appa's Lost Days. Whatever, in the end there's nothing definitive or official to both assumptions.
I think that's a reasonable hypothesis and certainly makes sense with the all the information we have, but like you said it is all still based on assumptions. Hopefully we can get a definitive confirmation at some point.
I think it's also worth nothing that the age of six was added before Avatar Extras released, which I believe was in 2009. This backs up my gut feeling that there is an actual work called the series timeline, but I have no idea what it is or where to find it.
The interesting part is the date 2 BG, the time at which Aang's 10 years old. And as we know from that Waterbending Scroll Avatar Extra, at that age he exceeded his masters. That picture would confirm that he got his master tattos at age 10 for his invention of the Air Scooter, while Aang's wikia article states that he got it with 12 years and references the encyclopedia. I didn't find any evidence at the Tumblr archive of nick.com.
If this timeline is legit, there could be also some long forgotten old ones.
It's even listed at Airbending#Special techniques, and Aang is still credited as getting the tattos at age 12 even though it's been hinted otherwise in Avatar Extras and disproven in this timeline. So the fact that he was the youngest master up until that point and Jinora being the new youngest master at age 11 is false.
I'm not sure that timeline is official, it was deleted and uses the AG/BG system which as far as I'm aware we came up with. If that is true and he's ten though it would change that information, especially since it's not just hinted at but outright stated in Avatar Extras that Aang got his tattoos at age 12. Especially since lots of information on the Nick.com page (other than Welcome to Republic City) are pretty inaccurate, like the Dark Into Light Trivia Game. It's also likely not what the user was referring to since, again, the edit was made in 2008 and that archive is from The Legend of Korra.
Yeah, I would be concerned about using that infographic as evidence in this instance just in case we get into a issue of circular logic. And as FF said, if it is true it must have come from somewhere else given the date it was added.
Wow! So nice to have a top-notch editor such as yourself back here! Hope you'll stick around, but just wanted you to know it's definitely a nice surprise having you back HoT. Sorry I couln't stop by and say hello before; I've been extremely busy lately.
Well, that's certainly good to hear! Things on my end here have been pretty calm in general. I really boosted my activity when Turf Wars Part 1 came out this summer, which was really fun.
Vanguard's been keeping me busy as well, but I've only really had a couple of truly complicated wikis. Most are pretty easy to do.
However, I have been noticeably less active around here and everywhere, really. I'm currently a high school senior and because I'm hoping to be an industrial engineer, things have gotten brutal for me in school. That and I got a job, so I've been keeping myself busy. I do wish I could help out more with Turf Wars Part 2 updates, though.
Are you looking forward to doing anything around here yourself?
I know the feeling when studying starts to take over your whole life. The main reason I left 2 years ago was because of the amount of work I had. But luckily it has calmed down a bit now.
I'm keen to see about updating the family tree template to a newer version that has more customisation options and should look a lot nicer. It'd also be nice to go through all the articles listed for expansion or cleanup, as those pages always get forgotten about. Otherwise, just helping out when and where I can.
Agreed. When you read back over your comments in previous forums and completely disagree with what you said, or realise that your argument was just complete rubbish. Shows why its stupid to be so stubbornly rooted to your opinion you don't consider the other side.
I've had worse surprises ;-) No, but really, it's great to see an amazing editor return!
As for me, I've been ... quite busy with work and stuff, so the wiki had to take a backseat for the last few months. I try to monitor it as much as I can, though, just doing bits and pieces whenever I feel like it and have the time.
Hahahaha, I can imagine. I honestly thought twice about going for my second master when I knew that it also meant that I had to write another masters thesis. And that's just a masters thesis, nowhere near a PhD thesis ^^". You also still have to verbally defend your work before a jury, I reckon?
I do have a question actually. You mentioned in one of the forums that the family tree template doesn't transfer very well to mobile, which having had a look I completely agree with. If I recall, there was a push by wikia in the past to ensure all templates and infoboxes work on mobile; do you know if there was a fix for the family tree, or know someone I could message to ask?
I did a google search and it seems Wikipedia has something called charts which works much the same way, but I don't know if we will have the same issue using that.
To my knowledge the "portable infobox" was restricted to just that, the infobox, so all the other templates remained unaffected. Another thing FANDOM put in place was the categorizing of templates into different types in order to improve the mobile display of it all. I don't know to what extent the family tree template was affected, though :-/
When it comes to portability Tono555 is the man to turn to, considering he's part Vanguard, FANDOM's volunteer team to help communities switch to portable userboxes. For general coding help about whether or not those "charts" would be an option, it's best to turn to KettleMeetPot or Thailog, as some things will never change: I still don't really do codes ^^".
I will continue looking and if I can't find anything I will ask Tono, Thailog, and/or Kettle if they have any ideas; but I guess if portability was just restricted to infoboxes it might be outside the scope of what Vanguard does.
The family tree code is a pain to work with, but it would be nice to get it working (at least a bit) on mobile.
Chances are that it's outside the scope of Vanguard, but on the other hand, if anyone would have any inside knowledge about whether or not there are plans for the other templates, it would be a Vanguard member :-)